Does anyone know why IANA has assigned NS and A records to the
example.{com,org,net,...} domains? They even put up a website
at the IP explaining RFC 2606.
* Why did they assign NSs and a valid IP to these invalid domains?
* Are they breaking the RFC by doing this?
* Are they breaking
Roger Marquis [1/4/2004 10:06 PM] :
Does anyone know why IANA has assigned NS and A records to the
example.{com,org,net,...} domains? They even put up a website
at the IP explaining RFC 2606.
Perhaps because at least some people don't know about RFC2606 (and they
don't know RFC1918 as well,
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:36:17 PST, Roger Marquis said:
* Why did they assign NSs and a valid IP to these invalid domains?
So they can put up an explanatory website that says Don't do that,
you idiot. This is similar to the choice of one of the RFC1918 address
blocks because a major vendor used
Does anyone know why IANA has assigned NS and A records to the
example.{com,org,net,...} domains? They even put up a website
at the IP explaining RFC 2606.
because they are owned by the IANA.
* Why did they assign NSs and a valid IP to these invalid domains?
they are
* Are they breaking anti-UCE filters by doing this? (yes)
How? They own example.com. If UCE happens to contain a forged sender
of roble.com, would you consider that even remotely useful in a filter?
Why should example.com be any different? they will likely never use the
domain name, so
1. MTA is unlikely to create a user-agent header (unless it's really
broken). Stephen's comments seemed to be directed at MUA where
the initial statement was about MTA. I, frankly, agree that no
self-respecting network operator runs an MTA on M$W, but, I also
* Are they breaking anti-UCE filters by doing this? (yes)
How? They own example.com. If UCE happens to contain a forged sender
of roble.com, would you consider that even remotely useful in a filter?
Why should example.com be any different? they will likely never use the
domain name,
* Are they breaking anti-UCE filters by doing this? (yes)
How? They own example.com.
A) They don't own example.com and, B) this is the crux of the issue.
IANA was not granted special privileges by RFC2606 nor do they have
any more claim to these domains than Verisign does to unregistered
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Why did they assign NSs and a valid IP to these invalid domains?
So they can put up an explanatory website that says Don't do that,
you idiot.
This is the best explanation I've read so far. Problem is, it's
not a compelling rational. Is this
Roger Marquis [1/5/2004 3:19 AM] :
This is the best explanation I've read so far. Problem is, it's
not a compelling rational. Is this really the only reason for
assigning NS and A records, violating the RFC, and breaking thousands
of spam filters in the process?
What spam did you see that
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:36 PST, Roger Marquis said:
Example.dom was placed in the pubic domain by a public and open RFC
process. It seems that IANA has violated this process and in so
doing exceeded the authority vested in them by their contract with
DARPA (and the DOC?).
Erm. No,
Apologies for the inconvenice to others on NANOG for this post.
I've tried repeatedly over the last 6 weeks or more to get in touch with
someone within att.net's Abuse/Security/Mail administration.
I'd appreciate it if someone in such a position could please contact me
off list with urgency.
Paul if you look closer you'll see they have pipes to not only CWUSA, but Abovenet and
NetAccess. All of these providers are announcing the hijacked IP block.
Richard
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:55:29 -0500
To: Daniel Roesen [EMAIL
no need to look closer, im reasonably familiar with who they do business
with. i was merely correcting the 'they are not a cw customer' statement. i
wish whoever tries good luck in getting this filtered.
paul
- Original Message -
From: Richard Cocks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul [EMAIL
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
What spam did you see that forged example.* in the sender envelope / rDNS?
reject: RCPT from 123-58-189-66.wo.cpe.charter-ne.com[66.189.58.123]: 554 [EMAIL
PROTECTED]: Recipient address rejected: Relay access denied; from= to=[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 07:40:38 +0800 someone claiming to be
Richard Cocks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{snip}
For the record, neither that post, nor the earlier post which asserted
a Sender name of Hijacked-L were from, or in any way authorised by me.
I'm sure colleagues here are capable of header
Does anyone know why IANA has assigned NS and A records to the
example.{com,org,net,...} domains? They even put up a website
at the IP explaining RFC 2606.
because they are owned by the IANA.
pedantic point:
no, they are not 'owned' by anybody. they are *reserved*, and
should not be
Richard == Richard Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 07:40:38 +0800 someone claiming to be
Richard Richard Cocks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard {snip}
Richard For the record, neither that post, nor the earlier post
Richard which asserted a Sender
In a message written on Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 05:51:40PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
pedantic point:
no, they are not 'owned' by anybody. they are *reserved*, and
should not be used by anybody.
To be really pedantic, from http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html:
] 2. TLDs for Testing,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 05:51:40PM
-0800, Randy Bush wrote:
pedantic point:
no, they are not 'owned' by anybody. they are *reserved*, and
should not be used by anybody.
To be really pedantic, from
Does anyone know why IANA has assigned NS and A records to the
example.{com,org,net,...} domains? They even put up a website
at the IP explaining RFC 2606.
because they are owned by the IANA.
pedantic point:
no, they are not 'owned' by anybody. they are *reserved*, and
should
nanog in spoof name shocker!
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Richard == Richard Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 07:40:38 +0800 someone claiming to be
Richard Richard Cocks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard {snip}
Richard
I'm looking for a NOC or Security contact for storm.ca in Canada. One of
their customer's appears to have an infected/exploited system, however the
contact email addresses for their domain do not appear to be valid.
Thanks in advance.
Charlie
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
23 matches
Mail list logo
